Posted on 06/29/2006 7:28:59 AM PDT by Vectorian
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal. In a landmark decision, the court upheld the challenge of Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver against his trial at the US facility at Guantanamo.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan is demanding a civilian trial or court martial, where the prosecution faces more obstacles.
He is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal there.
The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.
dammie!!! I suppose we have to pay for his f&&&& lawyer.
If this is true, then I'm sick to my stomach. Why do taxpayers have to pay lawyers to defend the terrorists? This sucks.
Why does the Geneva Convention even apply to an irregular who is not a signatory?
Start scheduling them at the Hague is like a death sentence anyway because by the time they get done with a trial the terrorist will die of old age.
Sickening
Take NO prisoners.....end of problem
Fine.
Send them back to their country of origin.
I am SURE they will get a WARM reception in such places as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.....
I agree with this decision. The President overstepped hi sauthority. The United States is not a Monarchy.
What was the reasoning behind this?
The Supreme Political Court of the United States becomes more clear with each passing decision. The most important reason to never vote for a democrat.
"Take NO prisoners.....end of problem"
:)
Tyrants in black robes strike again.
Take no prisoners!
how backwards can the world of the US get? The characters in question were high quality (intelligence) individuals out to destroy the principles of freedom and democracy....let alone kill agents of the US.
And nown the court expects the US citizen to pay for their defence AKA defend the enemy???? Perhaps the american public should pay for their ieds and other weapons.
we are already paying for increased security, insurance and other infrastructure.
Perhaps these high value individuals should have been left in the field with the poppies.
When are people going to get it.
WE ARE AT WAR!
The people in Guantamino are war criminals and that falls under military tribunals. Not civil.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
What do you expect from that group of senil idiots, called the Supreme Court. They are MASS MURDERERS THEMSELVES...
AUTHORIZING THE MASS MURDER OF UNBORN OR HALFBORN BABIES
The terrorists are not "members of a nation", so they do not fit the definition given in the Geneva Convention. So how can the Geneva Convention apply to them, can only by logivcally justified by brain washed liberals.... NOT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.